In a Minnesota Civil Case, ADR Is the Default and the Court Orders It — Minn. Gen. R. Prac. 114 Names Ten Processes and Mediation Is One of Them

The statute behind the rule

Court-annexed ADR in Minnesota is not a local custom or a judge’s preference. It was ordered by the Legislature and built by the supreme court. Minn. Stat. § 484.76, subd. 1:

The supreme court shall establish a statewide alternative dispute resolution program for the resolution of civil cases filed with the courts. The supreme court shall adopt rules governing practice, procedure, and jurisdiction for alternative dispute resolution programs established under this section. Except for matters involving family law the rules shall require the use of nonbinding alternative dispute resolution processes in all civil cases, except for good cause shown by the presiding judge, and must provide an equitable means for the payment of fees and expenses for the use of alternative dispute resolution processes.

Subd. 2 fixes the menu and the default posture:

Alternative dispute resolution methods provided for under the rules must include arbitration, private trials, neutral expert fact-finding, mediation, minitrials, consensual special magistrates including retired judges and qualified attorneys to serve as special magistrates for binding proceedings with a right of appeal, and any other methods developed by the supreme court. The methods provided must be nonbinding unless otherwise agreed to in a valid agreement between the parties. Alternative dispute resolution may not be required in civil commitment matters, or in matters arising under section 144.651, 144.652, 518B.01, or 626.557.

The rule that carries it out is Minn. Gen. R. Prac. 114, in the General Rules of Practice for the District Courts. The advisory committee drew the boundary in one sentence in its 2022 comments: “Rule 114 governs ADR as a tool in managing pending litigation. The procedures employed may mirror those available to resolve disputes wholly outside the court-based litigation process, but Rule 114 does not govern ADR in those non-court contexts.”

What Rule 114 reaches, and the seven exceptions

Rule 114.01(a): “This rule governs court-annexed Alternative Dispute Resolution (ADR). All civil and family cases are subject to this rule except:”

1. As provided in Minn. Stat. § 604.11 (medical malpractice);
2. As provided in Family Court Rules 303 and 310;
3. Cases enumerated in Rule 111.01;
4. Cases excluded under Minn. Stat. § 484.76;
5. In rare circumstances where the court in its discretion finds ADR to be inappropriate or to operate as a sanction;
6. Where parties have proceeded in good faith to resolve the matter using collaborative law, the court may excuse the parties from using further ADR processes; and
7. Proceedings conducted by a special master appointed under Rule 53 of the Rules of Civil Procedure.

Exception 3 does a lot of work. Rule 111.01 excludes fifteen categories from the scheduling system, lettered (a) through (o), and the first is “[c]onciliation court actions and conciliation court appeals where no jury trial is demanded” — which is why a wage claim brought in the conciliation court division does not arrive in Rule 114. Others on that list include eviction actions under Minn. Stat. §§ 504B.281 et seq., harassment restraining order and order for protection proceedings, probate proceedings, land title registration under chapter 508, election contests under chapter 209, “applications to compel or stay arbitration under Minnesota Statutes, chapter 572,” consumer credit contract actions, and mechanics’ lien actions.

Exception 4 folds in the statutory carve-outs quoted above: civil commitment, and matters arising under Minn. Stat. §§ 144.651, 144.652, 518B.01, or 626.557.

An ordinary employment case — a Human Rights Act action under Minn. Stat. § 363A.33, a Whistleblower Act action under Minn. Stat. § 181.935, a wage action under Minn. Stat. § 181.171 filed in the civil division — is not on either list.

The ten processes, defined

Rule 114.02 groups them by what the neutral does. This is the vocabulary an order will use, and the categories carry consequences later in the rule.

Adjudicative processes — the neutral decides something.

• Arbitration. “A process in which a Neutral or panel renders an award after consideration of the evidence and presentation by each party or counsel. The award may be binding or non-binding, pursuant to the agreement of the parties.”
• Consensual Special Magistrate. “A process in which a Neutral decides issues after the parties have presented their positions in a similar manner as a civil lawsuit is presented to a judge. This process is binding and parties have the right of appeal to the Minnesota Court of Appeals.”
• Summary Jury Trial. “A process in which a Neutral presides over the parties’ abbreviated presentation of evidence and argument to a jury.” The verdict may be binding or non-binding by agreement, the panel is six jurors unless the parties agree otherwise, and it “may issue a binding or non-binding decision regarding liability, damages, or both.”

Evaluative processes — the neutral tells you what the case looks like.

• Early Neutral Evaluation. One or more neutrals “with experience in the subject matter of the dispute” review information “after the case is filed but before formal discovery is conducted,” and may give “an assessment of the strengths and weaknesses of a claim, case, or defense; an opinion of settlement value; and an opinion as to how the parties should expect the court to rule on the case or issue presented.”
• Non-Binding Advisory Opinion. The neutral issues “a non-binding advisory opinion regarding liability, damages or both.”
• Neutral Fact Finding. The neutral “analyzes a factual dispute and issues findings,” which “are non-binding unless the parties agree to be bound by them.”

Facilitative processes — one entry.

• Mediation. “A process in which a Neutral facilitates communication and negotiation to promote voluntary decision making by the parties to the dispute.”

Hybrid processes.

• Mini-Trial. Each side presents to “a selected representative for each party, a neutral third party, or both, to develop a basis for settlement negotiations.” Any advisory opinion “is not binding unless the parties agree that it is binding and enter into a written settlement agreement.”
• Mediation-Arbitration (Med-Arb). The neutral mediates first, then “in the event of an impasse, serves as arbitrator of the dispute.”
• Arbitration-Mediation (Arb-Med). The neutral arbitrates first and, “[p]rior to issuing the decision,” mediates; on impasse “the Neutral discloses the decision which may be binding or nonbinding.”
• Other. “Parties may create other ADR processes by means of a written agreement that defines the role of the Neutral.”

Two defined terms carry through the rest of the rule. A “Neutral” is “an individual who provides an ADR process under this rule.” A “Qualified Neutral” is “an individual or Community Dispute Resolution Program (CDRP) listed on the State Court Administrator’s roster as provided in Rule 114.12.”

How a process and a neutral get chosen

Rule 114.04(b) starts the process with the parties, not the court: “The parties, after service of the complaint, petition, or motion, shall promptly confer regarding selection and timing of the ADR process and selection of a Neutral,” and shall include that information in the submissions required by Rules 111.02 and 304.02. If the parties pick a process but cannot pick a neutral, “the court shall make the selection of a Qualified Neutral” — and the rule tells the judge to stay out of the first question: “If the parties decide on a process and cannot decide on a Neutral, the court should not substitute its judgment on process.” The court then sets a completion deadline “with the advice of the parties.”

The rule also fixes who may serve: “Any individual providing ADR services under Rule 114 must either be a Qualified Neutral or be selected and agreed to by the parties.”

A neutral the court picked can be removed once, without a reason. Rule 114.04(c): if the court selects a Qualified Neutral without the consent of all parties, any party may file a notice to remove, “filed with the court and served on the opposing party within 7 days of notice of the court’s appointment,” and the court then selects another. After that one free strike, a substitute “may be disqualified by the party only by making an affirmative showing of prejudice to the chief judge or his or her designee by motion filed within 7 days of notice of the court’s appointment.”

Rule 114.03 puts a duty on both the clerk’s office and the lawyers. The court administrator “shall provide information about ADR processes and the availability of a list of Neutrals who provide ADR services in that county” on request and in cases where ADR is required. And: “Upon being retained to advise on any civil dispute potentially subject to Rule 114, attorneys shall provide clients with information about available ADR processes.”

Who has to be in the room

Rule 114.06(a): “ADR sessions are not open to the public except with the consent of all parties.”

Rule 114.06(b): “The court may require that the attorneys who will try the case attend the ADR sessions in a manner determined by the court.”

The attendance rule then splits along the categories in Rule 114.02. For adjudicative sessions — arbitration, consensual special magistrate, summary jury trial — “[u]nless the court has ordered otherwise, individuals with the authority to settle the case need not attend . . . as long as such individuals are reasonably accessible.” For evaluative, facilitative, and hybrid sessions — which is to say mediation and everything like it — “[u]nless the court has ordered otherwise, individuals with the authority to settle the case shall attend . . . .”

That is the provision behind the familiar requirement that someone from the insurer or the company with actual settlement authority be present rather than reachable by phone. It is Rule 114.06(d), and it applies by the category of the process.

Confidentiality: two rules, and the exceptions in each

Rule 114.08 was adopted effective January 1, 2023, and it added something that had not been written down: a flat rule about recordings. “No record or recording of an ADR session may be made or disclosed without the agreement of all parties and the Neutral. If an ADR session is conducted in a court facility where proceedings are automatically recorded, the recording made shall not be used for any purpose in the case without the agreement of all parties and the Neutral.”

Rule 114.10 governs who may talk to whom. In adjudicative processes, “[n]either the parties nor their representatives shall communicate ex parte with the Neutral unless approved in advance by all parties and the Neutral.” In evaluative, facilitative, and hybrid processes — mediation among them — ex parte communication is permitted “with the consent of the Neutral, so long as the communication encourages or facilitates settlement.” That paragraph is the authority for the caucus.

Non-binding arbitration has a 21-day fuse

Rule 114.09 is the longest part of the rule, and one number in it is the reason to read it before agreeing to arbitration as the ADR process rather than as a clause signed at hire.

Under Rule 114.09(e)(1), the arbitrator files the decision with the court “[n]o later than 14 days after the date of the arbitration hearing or the arbitrator’s receipt of the final post-hearing memorandum, whichever is later.” Then (e)(2):

If no party has filed a request for a trial within 21 days after the award is filed, the court administrator shall enter the decision as a judgment and shall promptly transmit notice of entry of judgment to the parties. The judgment shall have the same force and effect as, and is subject to all provisions of law relating to, a judgment in a civil action or proceeding, except that it is not subject to appeal, and may not be collaterally attacked or set aside.

Rule 114.09(f)(1) states the deadline and forecloses relief from it: “Within 21 days after the arbitrator files the decision with the court, any party may request a trial by filing a request for trial with the court, along with proof of service upon all other parties. This 21-day period shall not be extended.” On a timely request, the arbitrator’s decision “shall be sealed and placed in the court file,” and “[a] trial de novo shall be conducted as if there had been no arbitration.”

If the 21 days pass, the route narrows to one motion: under (e)(4), “[w]ithin 90 days after its entry, a party against whom a judgment is entered pursuant to an arbitration award may move to vacate the judgment on only those grounds set forth in Minnesota Statutes, chapter 572B.” Binding arbitration under Rule 114 runs on chapter 572B from the start — Rule 114.09(a)(2): “Any binding arbitration shall be conducted pursuant to Minnesota Statutes, chapter 572B (‘Uniform Arbitration Act’), subject to any agreed-upon modifications permitted under the Act.” What chapter 572B gives and takes is the subject of the arbitration-clause page.

Rule 114.09(b) also loosens the evidence rules for non-binding arbitration in specific, dated ways: written medical and hospital reports, records and bills, documentary evidence of lost income and property damage, and “police reports concerning an accident which gave rise to the case” may be considered if copies were delivered to all other parties “at least 14 days before the hearing,” with the author subject to subpoena and cross-examination — and “[t]he arbitrator shall not consider any opinion contained in a police report as to ultimate fault.” Other written witness statements and expert reports come in on the same 14 days unless another party serves a written demand “at least 7 days before the hearing that the witness be produced to testify.”

The roster, and what it takes to be on it

Rule 114.12, subd. 2(a), directs the State Court Administrator to maintain rosters of Qualified Neutrals in two top-level categories, Civil and Family, with the Civil roster split into Civil Facilitative/Hybrid and Civil Adjudicative/Evaluative. Each roster “shall be updated and published on a regular basis.” The administrator “shall not place on, and shall delete from, the rosters the name of any applicant or Neutral whose professional license has been suspended or revoked,” and a Qualified Neutral “may not provide services during a period of suspension of a professional license unless a waiver is granted by the ADR Ethics Board.”

The training floors differ by category, and they are not large numbers. Under subd. 4(a)(1), a neutral providing “facilitative or hybrid services, that include a mediation component in civil, non-family matters, must have received a minimum of 30 hours of classroom training, with an emphasis on experiential learning” — structured under subd. 4(a)(2) as “a maximum of 15 hours of lectures and a minimum of 15 hours of experiential learning.” Under subd. 4(b)(1), a neutral “providing arbitration, summary jury trial, early neutral evaluation, and adjudicative or evaluative services or serving as a consensual special magistrate must have received a minimum of 6 hours of classroom training.”

Rule 114.01(b) reaches everyone who serves, roster or not: “All Neutrals serving in court-annexed ADR processes under this rule are subject to the authority of the ADR Ethics Board and the Code of Ethics for Court-Annexed ADR Neutrals, without regard to whether they are Qualified Neutrals as defined in Rule 114.02.” That is the same code the Legislature attached to a Department of Human Rights mediation in Minn. Stat. § 363A.28, subd. 5.

When it settles

Rule 114.05: “If a filed action is settled through an ADR process, the attorneys shall promptly notify the court and, whether filed or not, complete the appropriate documents to bring the case to a final disposition.”

Two statutes sit behind that sentence and neither is in Rule 114. Minn. Stat. § 572.35, subd. 1, provides that the effect of a mediated settlement agreement “shall be determined under principles of law applicable to contract,” and that such an agreement “is not binding” unless it contains a binding provision and a specified written advisory, or the parties “were otherwise advised of the conditions in clause (1).” Minn. Stat. § 572.39 suspends the running of a limitations period “from the date of the agreement to mediate until 20 days after notice of termination of mediation is delivered by certified mail or personally delivered as provided in the agreement to mediate.” Neither is part of Rule 114, and neither is triggered by a court’s ADR order; § 572.35 turns on what the signed agreement says, and § 572.39 turns on the existence of an “agreement to mediate” as Minn. Stat. § 572.33, subd. 3, defines that term.

Currency

Minn. Stat. § 484.76. Revisor History line, read on September 11, 2026: 1991 c 321 s 4; 1993 c 192 s 97; 1993 c 340 s 19; 2009 c 163 art 2 s 38; 2020 c 86 art 1 s 1. Table 2, queried per exact section, shows two records, both to subd. 2, the most recent from the 2020 Regular Session. No 2025 or 2026 action.

Rule 114. The General Rules of Practice were adopted effective January 1, 1992, and the Revisor’s posting carries the line “With amendments effective through July 1, 2026.” Rule 114 was rewritten as a group effective January 1, 2023: every rule from 114.01 through 114.13 carries that date — 114.08 as “(Adopted effective January 1, 2023.)”, which makes it a new rule rather than a renumbering, and the other twelve as an amendment. Three of them carry a further amendment effective July 1, 2026: Rules 114.09, 114.12, and 114.13. Because the 2023 rewrite renumbered provisions, an older source citing “Rule 114.08” for the evidence rule is citing what is now Rule 114.07; the committee comment to Rule 114.07 records it: “Rule 114.07 is substantially identical to former Rule 114.08, though former Rule 114.08(e) is relocated to new Rule 114.08(a).” Check the paragraph text, not the number.

Rule 111.01 was last amended effective March 1, 2024.

What this page does not do

This page describes a rule. It does not predict whether a particular judge will order a particular process, what a particular ADR order requires, or whether a particular statement is inside or outside Rule 114.07 — and that last question turns on which of the ten processes in Rule 114.02 the case was sent to, because paragraphs (c) and (d) of Rule 114.07 sort by process, not by subject matter. No case is cited on this page: the tools this site uses to retrieve Minnesota decisions were unavailable when these sources were checked, no search of the case law was run, and nothing here is offered as a report of what any court has held about Rule 114. What the forums are and what each decides is mapped in courts, agencies, and who decides what; what a civil case costs to bring is in what a case actually costs; and whether a clause signed at hire sends the whole dispute to a private arbitrator instead is its own page.